Evidence for the Consensual Scientific Worldview: Human Chromosome Two

8,659 Views | 92 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by AstroAg17
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looking through the history of the forums, we see many YEC vs evolution/old-universe threads. One of the most frustrating things about these threads is that the creationists don't engage the arguments put forth by the other side. When an opposing argument is put forth on one of these threads they fall back to their talking points. This is clearly demonstrated in the recent behemoth of a thread Earth's age at 6000 years. Therefore, in hopes of getting the creationists to engage the opposing arguments I will be creating new, more directed threads whose subjects will revolve around a very particular piece of evidence antithetical to creationist claims. I will try to post two to three new threads a week over the summer. In this thread I would like to discuss human chromosome two.

In the aforementioned thread human chromosome number two was brought up as evidence that human beings evolved from ancestral apes, though it was never addressed by the other side. All great apes except for humans have 24 chromosomes. Humans, however, have only 23 chromosomes. Thus if human beings evolved from ancestral apes we should expect one of our chromosomes to be a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. We find evidence of such a fusion event on human chromosome number two.

Your typical chromosome contains two telomeres at the ends of the chromosome, and a centromere somewhere near the middle. Human chromosome two has two telomeric regions at the ends, along with a telomeric region in the middle. Furthermore, there are two centromeric regions on human chromosome two, one functional and one non-functional. This is exactly what you would expect to find if two ancestral chromosomes had fused. If you laid out human chromosome two alongside chimpanzee chromosome two and three (labeled chromosomes 2A and 2B in some literature), they line up perfectly. The two centromeric regions on human chromosome two occur at the exact same place where the chimpanzee centromeres occur. The telomeric region in the middle of human chromosome two occurs exactly at the end-points of the analogous chimpanzee chromosomes, as it should if the chimpanzee chromosomes fused. The details of the telomeric region are exactly what you'd expect from a fusion event: a pre-telomeric sequence, a telomeric sequence (TTAGGG repeated), a reversed telomeric sequence (AATCCC repeated), and another pre-telomeric sequence. Finally, under a Giesma stain human chromosome two has the exact same banding pattern as chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3 when laid end-to-end.

Since creationism purports to be a scientifically tenable position, what is your scientific explanation for this set of facts. How do you explain the anomalous human chromosome two with its two centromeric regions and three telomeric regions, which is distributed exactly as though it were created by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. In light of all the other evidence of evolution, if God did this he is a mastermind deceiver indeed.
Knife_Party
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think at best you'll get a YEC come in here and throw out the God of deception argument. No intellectually honest person can touch these kinds of arguments from a rational or scientific perspective.
AggieRain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree with Knife that this is probably not the topic by which to draw out YECs. After the recent thread you referenced, what more is really left to say? Besides, picking apart YEC arguements, especially with your physics background, is really going after the low hanging fruit.
Amazing Moves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do it anyway.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
going after the low hanging fruit.


Rotten fruit needs to be picked and trashed lest it be swallowed by someone who doesn't know better.
AggieRain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
going after the low hanging fruit.


Rotten fruit needs to be picked and trashed lest it be swallowed by someone who doesn't know better.


How wasteful...one man's trashed fruit is another man's wine!
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There are a lot more great questions in this area that would be interesting to pursue.

When did speciation occur?

When it did occur, was it one mating couple that formed the genesis of the entire Human species?

Or, was there a time when our ancestor great ape species had fertile mating couples, where one genetic donor had 23 chromosomes, the other had 24, and they could have viable offspring? If that condition did exist, why did all of the species of great apes that we know today (presumably?) move away from this kind of genetic makeup.

Was this shift in chromosome count a reproductive burden on the ancestral great ape species? If so, how did it out compete the existing species that always had 24 chromosomes?

The one positive aspect of the other thread was that it got me into reading about the impacts of chromosomes on speciation. We still have a lot of work to do here. I am excited about the recent advances in gene sequencing, and how that will impact this area of study.

Finally, there is a difference between intelligent design and spontaneous creation. ID doesn't purport to answer how we got here, although most assume some kind of God lead evolution, or God created leap from Ape to Man. In my experience, the majority of people who would agree to spontaneous creation just haven't really thought about it very hard, and don't really care very much about the answer. Of course, there is a minority that will vehemently defend the YEC position.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Finally, there is a difference between intelligent design and spontaneous creation. ID doesn't purport to answer how we got here, although most assume some kind of God lead evolution, or God created leap from Ape to Man. In my experience, the majority of people who would agree to spontaneous creation just haven't really thought about it very hard, and don't really care very much about the answer. Of course, there is a minority that will vehemently defend the YEC position.


Yeah. Totally different!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So funny.

Those "Of Pandas" people are idiots.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Looking through the history of the forums, we see many YEC vs evolution/old-universe threads. One of the most frustrating things about these threads is that the creationists don't engage the arguments put forth by the other side. When an opposing argument is put forth on one of these threads they fall back to their talking points. This is clearly demonstrated in the recent behemoth of a thread Earth's age at 6000 years. Therefore, in hopes of getting the creationists to engage the opposing arguments I will be creating new, more directed threads whose subjects will revolve around a very particular piece of evidence antithetical to creationist claims. I will try to post two to three new threads a week over the summer. In this thread I would like to discuss human chromosome two.

In the aforementioned thread human chromosome number two was brought up as evidence that human beings evolved from ancestral apes, though it was never addressed by the other side. All great apes except for humans have 24 chromosomes. Humans, however, have only 23 chromosomes. Thus if human beings evolved from ancestral apes we should expect one of our chromosomes to be a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. We find evidence of such a fusion event on human chromosome number two.

Your typical chromosome contains two telomeres at the ends of the chromosome, and a centromere somewhere near the middle. Human chromosome two has two telomeric regions at the ends, along with a telomeric region in the middle. Furthermore, there are two centromeric regions on human chromosome two, one functional and one non-functional. This is exactly what you would expect to find if two ancestral chromosomes had fused. If you laid out human chromosome two alongside chimpanzee chromosome two and three (labeled chromosomes 2A and 2B in some literature), they line up perfectly. The two centromeric regions on human chromosome two occur at the exact same place where the chimpanzee centromeres occur. The telomeric region in the middle of human chromosome two occurs exactly at the end-points of the analogous chimpanzee chromosomes, as it should if the chimpanzee chromosomes fused. The details of the telomeric region are exactly what you'd expect from a fusion event: a pre-telomeric sequence, a telomeric sequence (TTAGGG repeated), a reversed telomeric sequence (AATCCC repeated), and another pre-telomeric sequence. Finally, under a Giesma stain human chromosome two has the exact same banding pattern as chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3 when laid end-to-end.

Since creationism purports to be a scientifically tenable position, what is your scientific explanation for this set of facts. How do you explain the anomalous human chromosome two with its two centromeric regions and three telomeric regions, which is distributed exactly as though it were created by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. In light of all the other evidence of evolution, if God did this he is a mastermind deceiver indeed.
Lot of words that could have been saved by saying "we look similar."
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
quote:
quote:
going after the low hanging fruit.


Rotten fruit needs to be picked and trashed lest it be swallowed by someone who doesn't know better.


How wasteful...one man's trashed fruit is another man's wine!
Touche.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Lot of words that could have been saved by saying "we look similar."


You'd prefer that, I'm sure, because what I've posted is infinitely more damning to the YEC's position.
Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
Lot of words that could have been saved by saying "we look similar."
You'd prefer that, I'm sure, because what I've posted is infinitely more damning to the YEC's position.
He has no problem with the God he worships being Loki.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
There are a lot more great questions in this area that would be interesting to pursue.

When did speciation occur?

When it did occur, was it one mating couple that formed the genesis of the entire Human species?

Or, was there a time when our ancestor great ape species had fertile mating couples, where one genetic donor had 23 chromosomes, the other had 24, and they could have viable offspring? If that condition did exist, why did all of the species of great apes that we know today (presumably?) move away from this kind of genetic makeup.

Was this shift in chromosome count a reproductive burden on the ancestral great ape species? If so, how did it out compete the existing species that always had 24 chromosomes?

The one positive aspect of the other thread was that it got me into reading about the impacts of chromosomes on speciation. We still have a lot of work to do here. I am excited about the recent advances in gene sequencing, and how that will impact this area of study.

Finally, there is a difference between intelligent design and spontaneous creation. ID doesn't purport to answer how we got here, although most assume some kind of God lead evolution, or God created leap from Ape to Man. In my experience, the majority of people who would agree to spontaneous creation just haven't really thought about it very hard, and don't really care very much about the answer. Of course, there is a minority that will vehemently defend the YEC position.
These are all good questions. Texags really should have a science forum. I want to avoid discussing those here, though. We have several creationists on this board. I want them to quit ducking the evidence, and address it head on. Namely, how do they explain the anomalous human chromosome two, and its analogous structure to chimpanzee chromosome 2 and 3 (2A and 2B). Or will they dodge this thread altogether? We'll see. Anyway, I don't want to venture too far off-topic and risk turning this into another free-for-all.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
quote:
Lot of words that could have been saved by saying "we look similar."
You'd prefer that, I'm sure, because what I've posted is infinitely more damning to the YEC's position.
I'd prefer that because I like concise writing.
John Maplethorpe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They'll just answer the same way other dna evidence is answered, 98% genetic similarity for instance.
"It's God's paintbrush, of course there are similarities, doesn't make evolution true"
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Lot of words that could have been saved by saying "we look similar."
You'd prefer that, I'm sure, because what I've posted is infinitely more damning to the YEC's position.
I'd prefer that because I like concise writing.
But apparently you don't like reading, because what you suggested I say, and what I actually said are entirely different. It's okay though. On my next thread, I'll make a finger-painting just for you, okay pumpkin?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Lot of words that could have been saved by saying "we look similar."
You'd prefer that, I'm sure, because what I've posted is infinitely more damning to the YEC's position.
I'd prefer that because I like concise writing.
But apparently you don't like reading, because what you suggested I say, and what I actually said are entirely different. It's okay though. On my next thread, I'll make a finger-painting just for you, okay pumpkin?
"Similar, but different." Concise, to the point, done a thousand times, different words. Yes, people can look at your scientific evidence and still think God created the world as the Bible says, but it shouldn't make you so insecure.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
quote:
Lot of words that could have been saved by saying "we look similar."
You'd prefer that, I'm sure, because what I've posted is infinitely more damning to the YEC's position.
I'd prefer that because I like concise writing.

concise writing is only worthwhile if it simultaneously shortens the amount said while still conveying the full, vital content of the original message. your contribution doesn't meet the second criteria.
letters at random
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great post. I learned from it. Thanks for taking the time.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
They'll just answer the same way other dna evidence is answered, 98% genetic similarity for instance.
"It's God's paintbrush, of course there are similarities, doesn't make evolution true"
How, pray tell. Would that suggest God made human chromosome two with a vestigial centromere and extra telomere just so he could split it in two and stick it in the rest of the apes? Sounds like human chromosome two was made with apes in mind. Why not just get rid of the excess genetic material, if each being is created from scratch?! Sounds like an unintelligent designer to me.
Leggo My Elko
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Yes, people can look at your scientific evidence and still think God created the world as the Bible says
Disagree
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have a PhD in science from the University of Science. I think I know what I'm talking about.
letters at random
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MB, you crack me up.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Lot of words that could have been saved by saying "we look similar."
You'd prefer that, I'm sure, because what I've posted is infinitely more damning to the YEC's position.
I'd prefer that because I like concise writing.
But apparently you don't like reading, because what you suggested I say, and what I actually said are entirely different. It's okay though. On my next thread, I'll make a finger-painting just for you, okay pumpkin?
"Similar, but different." Concise, to the point, done a thousand times, different words. Yes, people can look at your scientific evidence and still think God created the world as the Bible says, but it shouldn't make you so insecure.
This doesn't really address anything I've posted. Creationism purports to be scientifically tenable. It's a worldview creationists have been pushing to include in science classes for several decades. So if it is scientifically tenable, explain within your model why human chromosome two looks like a fusion event. Telomeres and centromeres have a purpose. So why do we have extra regions in chromosome two? If you want to defend creationism as scientifically tenable, you have to be able to answer these basic questions.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
First, creationism is not a scientific position, it is a faith position. Two completely different fields. Second, it's the same evidence, just interpreted from your worldview - evolution. You see the same evidence I do, but we fit it into our own narratives. Humans and apes have x, y, z similarities, and a, b, c differences. Humans and gorillas have a few more differences. Giraffes a few more. Fish a few more. Bacteria a few more. Rocks a few more. You say evolution. I say creation. I think your story is ridiculous, you think mine is. So called scientists get so defensive and insecure about their beliefs. I think that's telling.
Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
First, creationism is not a scientific position, it is a faith position. Two completely different fields. Second, it's the same evidence, just interpreted from your worldview - evolution. You see the same evidence I do, but we fit it into our own narratives. Humans and apes have x, y, z similarities, and a, b, c differences. Humans and gorillas have a few more differences. Giraffes a few more. Fish a few more. Bacteria a few more. Rocks a few more. You say evolution. I say creation. I think your story is ridiculous, you think mine is. So called scientists get so defensive and insecure about their beliefs. I think that's telling.
You would agree that creationism or "intelligent design" has no place being taught as an alternative "theory" in science classes?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think God is the basis for all knowledge and without him, nothing would be known. So no. Creationism is truth and should be taught as such. However, if people have convinced lawmakers that the only acceptable faith position is secular humanism, I would expect that it be removed from the classroom and evolution to be the primary point of indoctrination.
Leggo My Elko
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I think God is the basis for all knowledge and without him, nothing would be known. So no. Creationism is truth and should be taught as such. However, if people have convinced lawmakers that the only acceptable faith position is secular humanism, I would expect that it be removed from the classroom and evolution to be the primary point of indoctrination.
So you don't believe in separation of church and state?
Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I think God is the basis for all knowledge and without him, nothing would be known. So no. Creationism is truth and should be taught as such. However, if people have convinced lawmakers that the only acceptable faith position is secular humanism, I would expect that it be removed from the classroom and evolution to be the primary point of indoctrination.
I don't see what secular humanism has to do with anything. Most of your fellow brethren accept the evidence for evolution and still manage to believe in and worship God. Do you ever find it strange that those who take the YEC faith position are such a small minority of Christians overall?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
yah, and there was such a small minority of Christian slave owners and women beaters. So...
NonReg85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
They'll just answer the same way other dna evidence is answered, 98% genetic similarity for instance.
"It's God's paintbrush, of course there are similarities, doesn't make evolution true"
How, pray tell. Would that suggest God made human chromosome two with a vestigial centromere and extra telomere just so he could split it in two and stick it in the rest of the apes? Sounds like human chromosome two was made with apes in mind. Why not just get rid of the excess genetic material, if each being is created from scratch?! Sounds like an unintelligent designer to me.


Well. He made you. ..so there's that.
Woody2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
yah, and there was such a small minority of Christian slave owners and women beaters. So...
So you're admitting YEC causes harm? I'm not sure what your point is here.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
First, creationism is not a scientific position, it is a faith position. Two completely different fields.


But it is the contention of many creationists that creationism is scientifically justifiable. You further contend that creationism should be taught in the classroom. If that's the case, you need a coherent model to explain the facts. Anything less has no place in a science class. What I'm asking in this thread is to explain the set of facts presented from the creationism model. So far, nobody has taken that challenge.

quote:
Second, it's the same evidence, just interpreted from your worldview - evolution. You see the same evidence I do, but we fit it into our own narratives. Humans and apes have x, y, z similarities, and a, b, c differences. Humans and gorillas have a few more differences. Giraffes a few more. Fish a few more. Bacteria a few more. Rocks a few more. You say evolution. I say creation. I think your story is ridiculous, you think mine is.


Except I have a coherent model consistent with the facts, whereas you've provided no evidence of such a model. Again, I have yet to have someone explain to me how this set of facts is explainable by the creationist's model. On the other hand, it's easy to see how it's explained by the evolutionary model. In fact, a fusion event demands an evolutionary model. Only thing that's different is your mechanism for evolution. You presumably think God reshaped the genetic material from human->ape or ape->human, whereas I think the mechanism of evolution is natural selection. Not only is chromosomal evidence consistent with our evolutionary model, these facts were actually predicted using the evolutionary model. Can creationism make the same claim? One model has predictive power, explanatory power, and is consistent with all the scientific facts whereas the other is not. So it's not just a difference in worldview, it's a difference in the philosophy of how those worldviews were conceived. One model is created based on the evidence, whereas the other model (if it even exists...I'm still waiting for what this model is) is a priori.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
quote:
yah, and there was such a small minority of Christian slave owners and women beaters. So...
So you're admitting YEC causes harm? I'm not sure what your point is here.
I'm saying the minority is clearly always right.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.